UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
BUDGET SUB-COMMITTEE
TRANSPORT POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE
24th February 2009
MINUTES
Chair
Present
Apologies
Secretary
Professor Temple, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Resources)
Mr Barnard, Mrs Leyland, Mr Ma, Mr Merrett, Mr Nightingale, Ms Provan, Dr Rich,
Dr Sellens, Mrs Totman, Mr Wakeman, Mrs Williams,
Mr Budd,
Mrs Leyland, Transport Policy Coordinator
CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chair welcomed Ms Provan to the meeting.
01/09
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
No additional agenda items were starred and it was noted that there was no report
under item 12.
02/09
Minutes of the 4th December 2008 meeting.
03/09
MINUTES
Approved
MATTERS ARISING
Noted
Given the large number of action points, the Chair recommended that the
committee proceed with the other papers and, at the end, return to any items not
addressed.
04/09
UPDATE ON CAR PARKING
Noted
Mr Nightingale introduced the paper by first noting that since the start of term,
the position on car parking had been unacceptable and he apologised to car users,
particularly those at North Towers where there were major problems with the
machines.
05/09
He reported that during the week of snow, with machines freezing, Estate
Management had authorised patrol staff to be on duty in the North Towers car
park and hand out free tickets to those struggling to make the machines work. He
hoped this indicated to the Committee the level of concern and measures being
taken to address the issue.
06/09
Estate Management Section had drafted an Action Plan focussing on three
problems: communications, machine reliability and attitude of service provider.
On communications, actions include continuing to issue regular email updates,
filling worst potholes/ruts in overflow parking areas and progress chase pay and
display machine repairs daily. In the medium term, one of the measures which
was suggested by the service provider, is to prepare a pro forma appeal document
to help provide guidance and streamline the appeals process. It is anticipated to
07/09
be developed by the end of the academic year. In the long term, the plan is to
develop a proposal for a new car park and be more proactive in the presentation
of information.
Action
Noted
With regard to machine reliability, Mr Nightingale shared the day’s daily
machine reports which noted only two machines not working to full capacity (but
accepting cash). Mr Wakeman noted that staff at University Quays and Salary
Brook Farm were not happy having to pay by cash. Mr Nightingale responded
that the machine service provider was aware of the University’s dissatisfaction.
08/09
In the medium term, the University will consider appointing an alternative
service provider. It was noted that nearly all the machines had been installed at
the same time so it was not surprising that the card readers were failing at the
same time. However it was unacceptable that the service provider had not
provided a card reader for six months.
09/09
The University is investigating the implications of cancelling the service contract
and whether it could be done by someone else. The ease of procuring spare parts
will be key. Mr Nightingale noted that the service had recently improved
considerably following communication with senior management at the service
company.
10/09
Mr Merrett asked if there was a case to look at the whole system. Mr Nightingale
responded that the longer term plan was to review it, but first there needs to be a
review of how the machines are operating once a decent maintenance service is
in place. An update was requested for next meeting.
11/09
On the issue of the attitude of Woodlund Services, immediate actions include
reinforcing the need for good principles of customer care and investigating
promptly any formal complaints. In the medium term, Estate Management will
undertake a review to consider continuation of service. In the longer term, any
agreement should ensure that a University customer care training be attended,
although the question of who would pay for it has yet to be determined.
12/09
Mr Nightingale continued with other measures to improve car parking including
the remodelling of the Sports Centre car park with one line of visitors parking
moved there from the visitors’ parking in Valley Car Park. Committee discussed
the intention to allocate bays from the Valley line previously marked as visitors’
parking to being dedicated car sharing bays, highlighted as a strong incentive in
carsharing schemes. Until it is tried, it is difficult to gauge demand. CUG noted
they did not expect a huge demand for marked spaces. Some members queried
the allocation of dedicated spaces, which if under-utilised, may result in
compressing parking in general. The scheme is still to be developed and would
also be open to students. There was not universal agreement on the idea of
dedicated spaces for carsharing.
13/09
Mr Nightingale noted the beneficial progress made towards parking at Wivenhoe
House. He highlighted the discussion Woodlund Services had with their credit
card machine provider and the resulting new fee of 2.5% for credit card
payments.
14/09
Committee discussed the conditions and why Woodlund should charge for credit
card payments. It was noted that provision of such a facility was not in their
original contract and the Service Provider had investigated the provision of such
a service which then was an additional cost to them.
15/09
The UCU representative reported a considerable number of complaints with the
service and attitude of Woodlund Services. The UNISON representative
responded that anyone would be upset if they were clamped and that there had
been cases of staff who had been antagonistic towards Woodlund. He
emphasised that there were two sides to the situation and, that ultimately, nobody
likes clamping, whether at the University or elsewhere.
16/09
A campaign for encouraging people to park properly was suggested. The Chair
noted that the change in clamping enforcement had clearly engendered a strong
reaction but there had been progress in awareness and also in the robust
enforcement by Woodlund Services, and that it was a learning process.
17/09
Action
Mr Nightingale agreed to review the credit card payment issue in considering any
further contract with the Service Provider. It was also pointed out that the current
system is transparent in that those choosing to pay by credit card are being
charged directly for that service and others are currently not being charged for the
provision of the facility.
18/09
Noted
Committee discussed the idea of people being notified if they have been clamped
but data protection and resource constraints precluded it. Mr Nightingale
favoured a mechanism for people who were genuinely stuck, and to find a way of
helping them. Mr Barnard suggested that people could put their mobile number
on their registration stickers to provide a form of contact if they were clamped.
19/09
Mrs Williams stated that UCU were very concerned about the mud and the
hazard it presented in the overflow parking areas and considered it a health and
safety issue. Mr Nightingale reiterated that the overflow areas are not car parks.
The University permits people to park there at their own risk. If it becomes a
health and safety issue, he will have no option but to close down these areas. The
CUG representative reported three anecdotal cases of people turning round and
going home because they were unable to park.
20/09
Mr Wakeman pointed out that there were a lot of cars being left in the car parks
overnight (evident during the snowy period). The issue to be followed up with
Mr Nightingale.
21/09
Action
UPDATE ON PROJECTS 2008/9 FUNDED FROM CAR PARKING INCOME
Noted
Referring to the tabled update, Ms Leyland noted that because of a delay with the
North Towers motorcycle shelter, they had had a problem at the end of the year
with rollover approval and hadn’t been able to pay against the quotation which
was beyond date. The subsequent quotation was £780 higher, probably because
of changes in the value of the pound. With only a few days to decide, and the
shortfall able to be covered elsewhere, it had been agreed to go forward with the
procurement which she hoped was accepted by the Committee.
22/09
With regard to cctv for car park ‘A’ and powering of two of the P&D machines,
it is easy to also include machine no. 14 which is the main one by the Sports
Centre. She requested approval from TPSC to incorporate the powering of this
additional machine. If the camera cost then exceeds the budget, Mr Dumbrell
would be able to supplement it from his allocation for cameras in the LTM
security budget.
23/09
Ms Leyland gave a further update on the traffic calming on Boundary Road to
24/09
improve passage of cyclists at the barrier. The hoops have been removed and
temporary posts are in place, in a staggered configuration. Because of the long
lead time for the bollards, they will be positioned subsequently. Mrs Williams
noted that this was a major improvement. Ms Leyland commented that the same
system would be used on the Quays route.
Reporting on the project to improve cctv cycle storage surveillance, Ms Leyland
noted that the camera required would be a conventional one around £400. In
terms of security, the University loses between 10-30 cycles a year so it is an
issue, and the area under square 5 is one that the University wants to promote as
covered secure cycle storage for residential students.
25/09
CYCLING STRATEGY FOR UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
Noted
Mr Nightingale introduced the paper by recalling that the BUG had proposed a
fairly extensive list of measures and Committee had agreed that he have a
meeting with them to see how they coalesced with future University capital
development. He reported that it was a very good meeting, the result of which is
the plan presented with six identified projects which Estate Management had put
notional costings to. In conclusion, he referred the Committee to the prioritised
projects paper for their consideration.
26/09
PRIORITISED PROJECTS FOR APPROVAL 2009/10
Noted
It was clarified that the projects presented had been previously prioritised from
A-C, and the cycling projects 1-10, with one new project being the remodelling
of car park ‘B’ costing £91,000. The Chair concluded that the first cycling
project would therefore be equivalent to ‘A’.
27/09
Mr Nightingale elaborated the assumption that income for next year would be in
the region of £180,000 - £200,000, and that it would be desirable if the meeting
could agree large projects as they would need designing and likely
implementation over the summer.
28/09
The Chair referred members to the projects rated ‘A’ and the new project that
would provide additional car parking spaces as well as the request for an assistant
travel coordinator (under agenda item 10.)
29/09
It was noted that the A* project for signage on car parking was to reduce any
misunderstanding for car parkers and the risk of being clamped. It was agreed to
return to the carsharing project given the lack of consensus on assigning
dedicated bays. In terms of powering P&D machines, it was noted that by the
end of this year, all bar one machine in North Towers and all bar two in car parks
‘A’ and ‘B’ would be on mains power. Two others had yet to have card readers
installed. The first two cycle projects were noted as ‘A’, the second one being an
extension of the route of the first.
30/09
Mr Nightingale introduced the additional project to remodel car park ‘B’. With a
new Planning Officer more amenable to the car park encroaching more to the
south, the University had drawn up the scheme presented, which would give an
additional 37 spaces. The intention was to link the expansion with the Fitness
Centre extension and provision of additional cycle storage. Hence, the urgency
as the project would need to go for planning within six weeks. Given the need
for additional parking and the difficulty of creating it anywhere else, he hoped
that the proposal for this use of car parking income would be well received by car
31/09
users. The Car User Group representative confirmed this and it was recognised
that some car users are unable to use any other means to reach the University.
Ms Leyland noted that the cost per additional car parking space was just under
£2,500 and the project would also include marking pedestrian walkways within
the car park to improve pedestrian safety.
32/09
Agreed
Committee agreed to support the remodelling of car park ‘B’ project, providing
the additional 37 parking spaces and the A* project to improve signage for car
parking, both of which were noted as projects to benefit car users.
33/09
Noted
Another ‘A’ rated expensive project is the traffic calming at the junction of
Boundary Road and North Towers car park road. Mr Nightingale stated that this
would be contingent on developments for the Knowledge Gateway and therefore
not likely to be implemented in the coming year. However, Committee agreed
that road markings be improved on Boundary Road approaching the junction to
prevent vehicles overtaking there.
34/09
The other high expenditure ‘A’ project requiring design time was the high cost
cycle route from Boundary Road to the cycle parking at Rayleigh Tower. It was
noted that, besides cyclists, it will benefit car users (with cyclists not then routing
through North Towers car park) and also pedestrians with a more direct route in
to campus. Committee agreed to support the cycle route.
35/09
Agreed
Committee agreed to recommend to USG expenditure of £189,650 in relation to
the two large projects and signage project, leaving other projects to be
determined next meeting when there will be a clear indication of the budget
available. It was noted that there were no clear guidelines or report given for the
previous two years expenditure.
36/09
Noted
Committee agreed the need for a comprehensive financial report to be presented
at the next meeting.
37/09
Action
The Registrar also requested that the project to fund hoarding at Hythe Station be
re-scoped in terms of a fast route option from the station.
38/09
ASSISTANT TRAVEL CO-ORDINATOR
Noted
Mr Nightingale highly commended the work that Ms Leyland was doing as
Transport Policy Coordinator and noted that although her input was equivalent to
half time, she was working a lot more than that and that the work was becoming
increasingly sophisticated. Communications were an issue with her part-time
presence in the week and her not being present over the summer was a potential
factor in inhibiting the smooth implementation of projects such as the rigorous
clamping regime. With her being involved more closely in transport initiatives in
Colchester, of benefit to University transport users, there was insufficient time to
deal with the many small daily tasks and provision of information such as regular
updates on statistics and income. Neither she nor Greg Dumbrell, the Security
Manager responsible for the car parks had the time or resources to provide the
information now required for car park management. Hence, he proposed an
assistant with less experience in travel planning but who can develop the skills
and provide continuity in the post.
39/09
He recommended that the estimate of £11,000 for the post (pro rata) would be
money well spent and hoped that Committee would support a recommendation to
40/09
USG that the University should engage the post holder with money coming from
car parking income.
Agreed
Committee endorsed the recommendation.
41/09
CAR PARKING STRATEGY ON LOUGHTON CAMPUS
Noted
The Chair emphasised the question of whether the University should be 42/09
introducing parking charges at Loughton at all. The argument in favour would be
parity although parking pressure was not critical and may not become so.
Committee discussed the issue. If monies coming in for car parking were to be 43/09
utilised for all campuses, then the policy should require that all campuses are
contributing. Loughton is about to receive money for cycle storage as one of the
current projects. Loughton staff have also benefited from the ‘cycle to work’
scheme as has Southend. Loughton requires investment to be able to charge for
car parking whereas Southend campus has no car parking facility. It is not
possible to have equity between campuses and there are very different issues of
scale between Loughton and Colchester. For instance, it is possible to deploy
staff time at Colchester on car parking management but such a resource is not
available at Loughton. It was questioned how long it would take to pay back the
costs for providing car parking charging at Loughton. Income from annual car
parking revenue at Loughton was estimated at £5,000.
Committee agreed to identify the costing for installing a car parking charging 44/09
scheme, noting that the Committee had not agreed that the University should do
it. If the scheme were financially feasible, then the issue would be returned to.
Action
Mr Nightingale and Ms Leyland to initiate the costing as a project.
45/09
Noted
It was noted that there was currently no evidence of people using Loughton 46/09
campus for free car parking although this should be reviewed. The question of
whether Loughton was aware of the issue being discussed by Committee was
raised. Loughton has a representative on the Health & Safety Committee,
representation academically and in the new Students’ Union executive. It was
assumed that any decision on the car parking would entail a 12 month
consultation period. Ms Leyland had been in communication with Mr Cushway
regarding the car parking and the Loughton cycle storage project in the current
year’s budget. The suggestion emanating from Loughton was that cycle storage
was not required if this was likely to instigate charges for car parking.
Agreed
Committee agreed to provide cycle storage at Loughton regardless, and a decision 47/09
needs to be made subsequently whether to recommend to the University that
Loughton pay car parking charges.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Noted
The UCU representative reiterated a growing concern over overflow parking
areas and their safety, particularly in bad weather, and serious concerns about
health and safety issues. UCU feels that if parking is charged for, the University
cannot ignore parking safety and it is incumbent on the University to make
parking safer. Mr Nightingale reiterated the problems experienced with the use
of temporary webbing surfacing which tore up, and that there may come a point
when the University will have to close off those areas.
48/09
The Unite representative noted the difficulty of insisting that people who park in
the overflow area must have a ticket otherwise they may be clamped, which then
defines it as a car park. He suggested that with the overflow areas now only
opened up once the car parks are nearly full, people shouldn’t pay to park in the
overflow areas which they then would park in at their own risk. It was reported
that UEA operates a similar system for their overflow areas.
49/09
Committee discussed reservations with regard to the proposal as well as the
logical consequences of the health and safety car park issue being to either reduce
the number of car parking permits issued or to build more spaces, e.g. a multistorey car park.
50/09
Mr Barnard reiterated the choice between making the overflow areas safer or
making sure they are not car parks.
51/09
The Chair summarised that there are potential Health & Safety issues in the car
parks. The fact that the University is charging in the overflow areas carries with
it the implication that it recognises these as car parking areas which then makes
health and safety issues problematic.
52/09
There are a variety of options including shutting down the overflow areas.
Figures for the numbers of vehicles parked in the overflow areas were not
available and serious concerns were expressed about the management of a
scheme allowing free parking in the overflow areas.
53/09
Action
Committee agreed it necessary to find out how health and safety regulations
operate with respect to car parking and what the University’s liability is. It was
noted that the issue is one of risk management and that figures for any injuries in
the car parks should be collected. Ms Leyland to action.
54/09
Noted
There was a need to prioritise filling in the potholes in the overflow areas.
Hoggin had been put down in the areas where people drive in. An exploration of
other options to improve the car parking area was requested and the option of
parking along the roads was suggested, if managed properly. It was suggested
that the idea of reducing demand should be revisited, and that the current system
is not sustainable and nor is car parking a particularly price sensitive issue.
55/09
The Chair welcomed ideas from the Committee, including the Car User Group.
The CUG representative reported that their website should go live before the next
TPSC and that the group was in the process of gathering information.
56/09
Mr Merrett reported that the CUG was willing to look at areas where people don’t
need to drive in from, e.g. within a certain radius or with good alternative
transport links.
57/09
In response to a question from Mr Barnard, it was agreed that Committee would
not make any decision this meeting with regard to withdrawing the option for
paying the pre-registered pay and display fee of £75.
58/09
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Noted
Wednesday 8th July 2009, 10am.
59/09